Archive for the ‘United Nations’ Category

Bill C-6 will be passed in days. SPREAD THIS NOW!!!!

October 18, 2009

Just received update on Bill C-6

Farewell Canada. Bill C-6 will be passed in days. SPREAD THIS NOW!!!!

Under the banner of Consumer protection as well as Health and Saftey, Canadians should prepare for a loss of basic human freedoms that were once protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights…..

Bill C-6 is about to have its 3rd and final reading before being passed into law.  With a sense of desperate urgency I am now busy sending emails to Canadian Senators and MP’s to try and halt this draconian legislation, which will end Canadian freedoms as once enjoyed by so many.

I appeal to Canuck’s on this website to consider investing 15 minutes in this cause. I am including an email I just sent out to friends and family with a pre-written letter to Canadian Senators and MP’s, and a ‘cut and paste’ list of all Senator and MP’s email addresses.

If you are hazy on Bill C-6, be sure to check out the videos posted at the end of this article.

If you are concerned by this issue, now is the last opportunity to act! – not tomorrow, not after a few days, but NOW!  Feel free to use all or parts of the email below….

Quote:

“Bill C-6 is about to be passed into law. In days it will receive its 3rd and final reading before becoming law. It deserves our effort (NOW) to stop this draconian removal of our basic Canadian civil liberties.”  This Bill will also allow for mandatory, total population vaccination programs. Do we want that????

I am asking for 15 minutes of your time to cut and paste a pre-written letter (or create your own) to be sent to our Government Senators (email addresses included below). It’s rather easy to do.

First, here are a few comments about Bill C-6 from Dee Nicholson, National Communications Director for Freedom in Canadian Health Care

Bill C-6 is unconstitutional: its language violates the provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as follows:

a. search private property without a warrant;
b. seize private property without Court supervision;
c. destroy private property without Court supervision;
d. take control of businesses without Court supervision;
e. in some circumstances to keep seized private property without a Court order;
f. impose penalties without a Court order.”

(Learn more at http://www.falseflagflu.com/citizen_info_and_action.html)

and, more comments from a friend’s email (at very bottom of this page)…

The C-6 law would allow the Canadian government’s  enforcement agents to:

* Raid your home or business with a simple ex parte application via telephone. (Are consumer products so risky that we have to move away from our current search warrant provisions?- Shawn Buckley)

* An inspector who is carrying out their functions or any person accompanying them may enter on or pass through or over private property, and they are not liable for doing so. (May as well throw out all those signs that say No Trespassing and Private Property!)

* The use of force to enter your home or private property with peace officers

* Confiscate your property, take samples free of charge and even charge you storage fees for the expense involved in storing all the products they stole from you

* The ability to amend Bill C-6 Schedule 1 through regulation alone (Very dangerous!)

Here’s the letter for Canadian Senators, to paste into a new email:

-Subject: Bill C-6

Dear Senator,

The denial of Due Process of law, being employed in Bill C-6 is unconstitutional. According to the Book of Criminal Procedure, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution Act are the supreme law of this country, and any legislation which voids our rights is “of no force or effect.” Why is our government not only passing an unconstitutional law, but fast-tracking it too? How can we trust that this legislation is for the good of the nation and all its citizens, when such manoeuvring is being used to pass it? This Bill must not be passed. It is unconstitutional, illegal and treasonous! You as Senators are there to protect us and not to take our rights away.

Sincerely, (your name)

MASS E-MAILING SENATORS, copy and paste all the address into your BCC in smaller groups in case your email program is limited.
Get the list here:
http://www.falseflagflu.com/docs/senator_emails.html

If you wish to do the same for MP’s (as I am doing as well as Senators) simply replace the “Dear Senator” in the letter to,. “Dear MP”, and cut and paste the following list of MP email addresses…(they are broken into small groups)
Get the full list of e-mail addresses here: http://webinfo.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/MainMPsCompleteList.aspx?TimePeriod=Current&Language=E

“To do nothing is to bid farewell to freedoms for Canadians.”

Info from a Canadian website…..
“For Canadians at this moment, the most serious threat to their rights and freedoms is Bill C-6 which has been passed by our Parliament, and was recently in the Senate for 2nd Reading. The 3rd reading could pass it into Law. (Notice: 2nd reading has now been passed)”

If it passes, it would provide our Government with draconian means to remove supplements, to force-vaccinate the population, to remove all our Rights and Freedoms, including the right to Due Process, which has been our right since the Magna Carta was signed in 1215 AD.

More info at:

http://www.falseflagflu.com/citizen_info_and_action.html
http://www.care2.com/news/member/184653585/1255539

Read Bill C-6 Here For Yourself: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=3633883&Language=e&Mode=1&File=29

Below is an email I received from another concerned person

UPDATE/FLASHBACK: Bill C-51, Codex and the SPP

UPDATE:
“Many will recall the intense opposition voiced against Bill C-51 which proposed sweeping changes to the Food and Drugs Act. There was also much contention surrounding Bill C-52, the Consumer Products Safety Act. Both Bills would have expanded the powers of Health Canada in areas of seizure and detention. After the last federal election in October 2008, the Harper government essentially reintroduced Bill C-52 as Bill C-6. It has now been passed in the House of Commons and is being debated in the Senate. Despite assurances by the Conservatives that C-6 has nothing to do with natural health products, there are still many concerns. Part of the Security and Prosperity Partnership of North America (SPP) agenda, involved the harmonization of regulations. Codex Alimentarius is about implementing a global food code and threatens health freedoms. Codex worldwide implementation is slated for December 31, 2009. Many initiatives such as Bill C-6 are moving forward under the guise of public safety and would expand governmental powers and could be used to violate civil liberties.”

FLASHBACK:
Bill C-51, Codex and the SPP
(Originally Published on June 20, 2008)

By Dana Gabriel

On April 8, 2008, Canada’s Health Minister introduced Bill C-51 which proposed sweeping changes to the Food and Drugs Act. The Canadian government has since been forced to make amendments because of intense grassroots pressure. There are fears that this Bill could lead to some vitamins, herbs, minerals, and dietary supplements no longer being available in the country. Through the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP), Canada, the U.S., and Mexico are already busy harmonizing food and drug regulations into a North American Union structure. Some have suggested that this Bill would also bring Canadian law into compliance with the Codex Alimentarius Commission. Bill C-51 has the potential to take away the rights of people to freely choose natural medicine as an alternative to expensive drug-based products and treatments.

Bill C-51 will further encroach on civil liberties and increase police state measures. There is reason for concern because of the Bills ambiguous language in regards to raids and seizures. It has been referred to as a police state bill masquerading as a health bill. It will make it easier for Canadian officials to seize natural health products and remove them from store shelves. It grants inspectors the power to raid homes and businesses without a warrant and the power to seize bank accounts and property. Some might recall that in the early 90’s, the FDA engaged in paramilitary raids on American health food stores, holistic treatment centers, and other nutritional supplement businesses. This behavior created such a public outcry and backlash, leading Congress to pass the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) to protect the right of American consumers to purchase and use nutritional supplements.

If the Harper Conservative government thought that they were going to quietly pass Bill C-51, were they ever wrong. When word hit the Internet and blogosphere that up to 60% of natural health products currently sold in Canada could be outlawed, it sparked a swift and strong public reaction. In Bill C-51, the word drug has been replaced with “therapeutic products” and gives the government broad reaching powers to further regulate their sale. Health Minister Tony Clement has vowed to change the parts that lumped natural medicines in with pharmaceutical drugs. This includes a clearer definition of natural health products into the Food and Drugs Act. There have been other amendments made, but there are still many concerns surrounding Bill C-51. It might be safer to do away with it in its entirety and start from scratch.

It is the SPP working groups that are harmonizing regulations and laws, writing out policy initiatives and recommendations. They are the real power, laying the foundation for a North American Union. Part of the SPP calls for the “Identification and appropriate adoption of best practices in maintaining the safety, efficacy and quality of pharmaceutical products.” NDP MP Peter Julian said in the House of Commons that, “Bill C-51 would limit access to many health products and allow the fast-tracking of new drugs that have not been proven safe. Bill C-51 blends in with the SPP agenda, which is about harmonizing regulations across the board with the United States, resulting in lower standards.” There are fears that Bill C-51 will bring about a more U.S. style approach to food, drugs, and consumer product safety. This includes turning more power over to the drug companies with increased reliance on their testing and research. These same drug manufacturers would themselves be more responsible in fast-tracking the drug approval process and further looking after any safety concerns once the drug has hit the market. Under the Trilateral Cooperation Charter, the FDA is also working with Canada and Mexico in further harmonizing regulations between the three countries.

It is not just through the SPP and the Trilateral Cooperation Charter that the harmonizing of food and drugs is being achieved. The Codex Alimentarius Commission which is part of the United Nations is setting international guidelines for food products including dietary supplements. They are using muscle provided by the World Trade Organization to undermine and bypass domestic laws. Section Six of CAFTA talks about using the Codex codes as the regulatory standard for all signing nations. It is through the Codex guidelines that vitamins, minerals, and other natural supplements could become limited and even banned. Some fear that Bill C-51 is an attempt to place Canada under Codex control.

Many argue that Bill C-51 is unnecessary, and that there are already laws in place to protect consumers from natural health products. It’s not about keeping Canadians safe, it’s about further harmonizing our health and safety regulations into a North American Union. How can fast-tracking potentially dangerous new drugs and at the same time outlawing some beneficial natural medicines be good for anyone? One must understand that it is also about ensuring huge profits for Big Pharma. Bill C-51 should be rejected on the grounds that it threatens the ability of Canadians to choose alternative health products and treatments.

Advertisements

Agenda 21 – Sustainable Development

September 18, 2009

Editor:

Agenda 21 is responsible for most of the wrongs in the world at this time in history. Understand what Agenda 21 means and be prepared to beat it back. If we don’t beat it back we will all be enslaved by a small group of psychopathic criminals.

Freedom or Tyranny those are the choices.

Choose wisely!

AGENDA 21 Sustainable Development Michael Shaw

The Bible according to Green Satanists

August 23, 2009

Editor: The “Green Movement/Satanists/UN/NWO know no bounds. They took the Bible and desecrated it for their purposes.

Green Satanists desecrate the Bible to push their Agenda

Green Satanists desecrate the Bible to push their Agenda

The Green Bible

The Green Movement and Christianity

The Green Movement and Christianity

The Earth Charter and the Ark of the Gaia Covenant

Man is the Enemy!

The Green Agenda

The History of the Global Warming Scare

Cloak of Green

Beware! The Green Shirts Are Here

Is Global Warming Man Made?

Understanding the Environmental Movement

Global Warming – Scam of the Century

Global Warming Exposing the Scam

Green Agenda Quotes

AL GORE, THE UNITED NATIONS,

National Round Table – Agenda 21

July 21, 2009

Please take the time to read the bio’s of the members – half way down the page under members.
You cannot fight wind farms unless you understand the depth of the treason that has descended upon this country.

Emerging from the famous Brundtland Report, “Our Common Future”,1987 the NRTEE became a model for convening diverse and competing interests around one table to create consensus ideas and suggestions for sustainable development.

The Round Table will be providing leadership in the new way we must think of the relationship between the environment and the economy and the new way we must act.
Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, October 1988 Since its creation in 1988, concerns about climate change, air quality, and water availability have made Canadians and their governments increasingly aware of the need to reconcile economic and environmental challenges as they have become increasingly interlinked.

Excerpt from the 1993 NRTEE Act

The purpose of the Round Table is to play the role of catalyst in identifying, explaining and promoting, in all sectors of Canadian society and in all regions of Canada, principles and practices of sustainable development.


Global Warming It's a Good Thing

July 16, 2009

Are the deserts getting greener?

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change warned recently that rising global temperatures could cut West African agricultural production by up to 50% by the year 2020.

But satellite images from the last 15 years do seem to show a recovery of vegetation in the Southern Sahara, although the Sahel Belt, the semi-arid tropical savannah to the south of the desert, remains fragile.

Full story at the BBC

Energy Policy 'Too Wind Focused'

July 12, 2009

Editor:  The UK is calling for more coal and nuclear.

But here in Ontario,  Dalton McGuinty and George Smitherman just keep on jambing up the wind farms even though anyone with an ounce of sense  should know better.

Listen up Dalton and George, it’s over, everyone but you two seen to get the picture.

Quit wasting the taxpayers money!  CO2 doesn’t cause global warming.

Get your act together or resign!

.

The UK must invest more in nuclear and clean coal energy and put less emphasis on wind power if it wants a secure low-carbon future, business leaders say.

The CBI says government energy policy is “disjointed” and it is urging a “more balanced” energy mix.

The current approach means the UK might miss climate change targets, it added.

The government said putting in place a balanced mix of renewables, new nuclear and cleaner fossil fuels was at the heart of its energy policy.

But the CBI is calling for more action.

“The government’s disjointed approach is deterring the private sector investment needed to get our energy system up to scratch, bolster security and cut emissions,” said CBI deputy director general John Cridland.

“While we have generous subsidies for wind power, we urgently need the national planning statements needed to build new nuclear plants.

“If we carry on like this we will end up putting too many of our energy eggs in one basket.”

Full story at the BBC

Premier, Dalton McGuinty Talks About Renewable Energy For Ontario

Ontario becomes a Fascist State

More growers turn to coal – Use of Coal is Expanding in the Province of Ontario

Beware! The Green Shirts Are Here

Children die in harsh Peru winter

July 12, 2009

Editor:

Let me get this straight. The  global warming nonsense started as a fight against CO2 emissions which left unchecked would cause the earth to warm to the point of threatening the very existence of man. The ice caps would melt and the oceans would rise. The fertile farm lands would become parched from lack of rain and the top soil would blow away. People would starve to death.

We were told we must shut down fossil fuel generation of electricity and replace it with intermittent, expensive renewable energy. If we did not do this right away man would surely be doomed.

For the last three years I have said  global warming was just another fraud by the elite to push their  NEW WORLD ORDER SCAM  on the unsuspecting public.

Since I first wrote about the Global Warming Scam, it has been renamed Climate Change.

Welcome to reality folks. The CO2 emissions have continued to rise while at the same time temperatures have continued to  fall.

Read the story below and then start asking some hard questions. I put some links at the end to help you understand the fraud and who is behind it.

Almost 250 children under the age of five have died in a wave of intensely cold weather in Peru.

Children die from pneumonia and other respiratory infections every year during the winter months particularly in Peru’s southern Andes.

But this year freezing temperatures arrived almost three months earlier than usual.

Experts blame climate change for the early arrival of intense cold which began in March.

Winter in the region does not usually begin until June.

The extreme cold, which has brought snow, hail, freezing temperatures and strong winds, has killed more children than recorded annually for the past four years.

Full Story at  the BBC

Below are a few links to posts on my blog. Please look around as there are many other stories on global warming to be found here.

Global Warming the Big LIE!

THE GLOBAL WARMING HOAX

Playing politics with global warming

I Was Fired by Al Gore!


Al Gore Global Governance London July 7 2009

July 11, 2009

Al Gore speaking in London on July 7 2009 talks about the need for Global Governance.

Enron was the start point for the carbon scam  along with the UN Global Warming Scam

Maurice Strong and Al Gore

Find the typo and get a free carbon credit- LOL! Al makes his own maybe he’ll send you one

David Suzuki Speaks in 1972 People = Maggots

July 3, 2009

Suzuki has been spinning the same crap for a very long time.  The man makes his living by instilling fear, mostly in young minds. Global warming is a fraud and Suzuki knows it. Or, he’s a complete fool and should be banned from the media. Meet David Suzuki – 1972 at the age of 32

Playing politics with global warming

June 12, 2009

Editor:

One more reason to question global warming.

We are being manipulated into accepting a global carbon tax propagated by dubious science.

If they succeed in their “EVIL” scheme, your life and the lives of your children will be negatively impacted forever.

Think about it!  A tax on ever aspect of your life because without carbon NOTHING exists.

Playing politics with global warming

Mark W. Hendrickson

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is widely regarded in the media as the ultimate authority on climate change. Created by two divisions of the United Nations, and recipient of the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize, its pronouncements are received as if they come down from Mount Olympus or Mount Sinai. The common presumption is that the IPCC has assembled the best scientific knowledge.

Let’s take a closer look at this organization to see whether it merits such uncritical deference.

The IPCC’s Feb. 2007 report stated: It is “very likely” that human activity is causing global warming. Why then, just two months later, did the vice chair of the IPCC, Yuri Izrael, write, “the panic over global warming is totally unjustified;” “there is no serious threat to the climate;” and humanity is “hypothetically … more threatened by cold than by global warming?”

IPCC press releases have warned about increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere, yet Dr. Vincent Gray, a member of the IPCC’s expert reviewers’ panel asserts, “There is no relationship between warming and [the] level of gases in the atmosphere.”

A 2001 IPCC report presented 245 potential scenarios. The media publicity that followed focused on the most extreme scenario, prompting the report’s lead author, atmospheric scientist Dr. John Christy, to rebuke media sensationalism and affirm, “The world is in much better shape than this doomsday scenario paints … the worst-case scenario [is] not going to happen.”

Clearly, the IPCC does not speak as one voice when leading scientists on its panel contradict its official position. The solution to this apparent riddle lies in the structure of the IPCC itself.

What the media report are the policymakers’ summaries, not the far lengthier reports prepared by scientists. The policymakers’ summaries are produced by a committee of 51 government appointees, many of whom are not scientists.

The policymakers’ summaries are presented as the “consensus” of 2,500 scientists who have contributed input to the IPCC’s scientific reports. “Consensus” does NOT mean that all of the scientists endorse the policymakers’ summaries.

In fact, some of the 2,500 scientists have resigned in protest against those summaries. Other contributing scientists, such as the individuals quoted above, publicly contradict the assertions of the policymakers’ summaries.

To better understand the “consensus” presented in the policymakers’ summaries, it is helpful to be aware of the structure of the IPCC. Those who compose the summaries are given considerable latitude to modify the scientific reports.

Page four of Appendix A to the Principles Governing IPCC Work states: “Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) made after acceptance by the Working Group of the Panel shall be those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers or the Overview Chapter.”

In other words, when there is a discrepancy between what the scientists say and what the authors of the policymakers’ summaries want to say, the latter prevails.

Here is a specific example: One policymakers’ summary omitted several important unequivocal conclusions contained in the scientists’ report, including, “No study to date has positively attributed all or part [of observed climate change] to anthropogenic [i.e., man-made] causes,” and “None of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed changes to the specific cause of increases in greenhouse gases.”

These significant revisions were made, according to IPCC officials quoted in Nature magazine, “to ensure that it [the report] conformed to a policymakers’ summary.”

Elsewhere, Rule 3 of IPCC procedures states: “Documents should involve both peer review by experts and review by governments.”

In practice, IPCC sometimes bypasses scientific peer review, and the policymakers’ summaries reflect only governmental (political) review.

This shouldn’t be surprising. After all, the IPCC is a political, not a scientific, entity. It is the “Inter-GOVERNMENTAL Panel on Climate Change,” not a “global SCIENTISTS’ panel.”

Also, “consensus” is a political phenomenon, a compromise, whereas scientific truth is not subject to obtaining a political majority.

(Actually, 31,000 scientists have signed a petition protesting the “consensus” that human activity is dangerously altering the Earth’s climate. Consider that against the 2,500 scientists cited by IPCC — many of whom publicly refute IPCC’s press releases.)

To its credit, the IPCC debunks many of the alarmist exaggerations of radical greens. However, its scientific authority remains irreparably compromised by political tampering.

When a U.S. State Department official writes to the co-chair of the IPCC that “it is essential that … chapter authors be prevailed upon to modify their text in an appropriate manner,” the political character of IPCC is plain.

The sponsors of the IPCC, the United Nations, and liberal American politicians all share the goal of reducing Americans’ wealth by capping our consumption of energy with a binding international climate change treaty. They are willing to resort to scientific fraud to further their goal.

In the words of Al Gore’s ally, former Under-Secretary of State Tim Wirth, “Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing” by reducing Americans’ consumption of fossil fuels. Keep that in mind whenever the IPCC is cited in support of a climate treaty.

[Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson is an adjunct faculty member, economist, and contributing scholar with The Center for Vision & Values at Grove City (Penn.) College.]

The Citizen